Freer v. Lake

• Decision Date: 25 January 1886
• Citation: 4 N.E. 512,115 Ill. 662
• Parties: FREER v. LAKE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

115 Ill. 662

4 N.E. 512

FREER

v.LAKE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed January 25, 1886.

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

Frank J. Crawford, for appellant.

H. T. & L. Helm, for appellee.

CRAIG, J.

This was a bill in equity brought by Mary A. Lake in the superior court of Cook county against L. C. Paine Freer to redeem certain premises in Chicago from a mortgage, and in the event that the property had been transferred so that a reconveyance could not be made, that then an alleged trust may be enforced, and that Freer may be required to account to the complainant for the rents and increased value of the property from May 27, 1878, until May 27, 1881. The material facts as appear from the pleadings and evidence are as follows: In 1871, one Gilbert, being indebted to Mugridge in the sum of $4,800, purchase money for the premises in dispute, gave him five promissory notes, four of $1,000 each, payable respectively May 27, 1874, 1875, 1876, and 1877, and the fifth for $800, payable May 21, 1878, all with interest at 8 per cent. Gilbert also executed a deed of trust on the premises to secure the notes. After the deed of trust was recorded, Gilbert conveyed the premises to Brooks, and he conveyed to Brown, and Brown conveyed to the complainant, Mary A. Lake. Each deed contained a clause obligating the grantee to pay the Gilbert trust deed. Prior to 1874, Freer had purchased the last four of the notes and deed of trust, the first one having been previously paid; and a short time before the last note became due, Freer and D. J. Lake, complainant's husband, entered into negotiations in regard to the payment of the indebtedness, which resulted in an arrangement under which Mary A. Lake and her husband conveyed the premises to Freer by an absolute deed of conveyance. The deed was prepared by Freer, and sent to the Lakes for execution, and with the deed the following letter:

‘CHICAGO, May 27, 1878.

‘ Mr. and Mrs. D. J. Lake: I have draughted a deed of the Gilbert property in conformity with a conversation had to-day with Mr. Lake, which you will find herewith inclosed. I am sorry to be troubled with the property, or to have you lose anything by it. There are two taxes against it,-the taxes of 1878 and an old city tax. These taxes I will pay, and all other taxes, and I repeat what I said before to Mr. Lake,-I shall consider myself honorably bound, if anything can be made out of the property during the next three years, more than the interest, taxes, insurance, and repairs, to give Mrs. Lake the benefit of it. This has been my uniform course in similar cases. In the mean time I shall expect the rent from the first of June, and your title papers and abstracts of title. Please execute the deed and send to me. First, fill the Christian name of Mrs. Lake; second, your place of residence, and acknowledge.

‘Yours, truly,

L. C. P. FREER.

‘P. S. I could collect my debt without difficulty of the makers and guarantors of the notes, but I do not wish to give any one more than the inevitable trouble these hard times.

L. C. P. F.'

Upon the receipt of this letter the deed was executed and returned to Freer, the title papers and abstract were delivered to him, and the possession of the property surrendered on the first day of June. At the time of this arrangement there was due on the trust deed and notes about the sum of $3,400, and on the first day of July, 1878, Freer sold the property to Seth Gage for $3,500, which was about the sum the property had cost Freer, having expended something in repairs after the property came into his possession. It also appears from the evidence that during the three years next succeeding May 27, 1878, the property increased in value so that if it had been held by Freer, and sold at the expiration of the three years, there would have been a net profit to complainant of $1,768.03, for which amount a decree was rendered in the superior court.

Much time has been consumed in the argument to prove that the transaction between the complainant and Freer was a mortgage, and that the parties should be governed by those principles which control mortgagor and mortgagee in the decision of the case. We have given the subject a careful consideration, but after the execution and delivery of the deed we are...